At 07:51 PM Sunday 9/6/2009, Rceeberger wrote:
On 9/6/2009 7:45:14 PM, John Williams ([email protected]) wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Bruce Bostwick<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Freedom of choice is never absolute.
>
> Especially when the government prevents people from providing free
> health care to others.
>
> http://www.wbir.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=96009&catid=2
>
> |
> "We tried to get a waiver to bring in good ol' East Tennessee boys and
> | girls to fix teeth, do eyes, but unfortunately, except in Tennessee, the
> | rest of the country won't allow practitoners of medicine from one state
> | to cross over and help in another state,"
> said Brock.
>
>
> Perhaps the best way for the government to start reforming health care
> would be to cease actively preventing others who want to help from
> providing help.
>
See....and you can be stupid too.
It isn't "the" government. It is 50 (or 49
depending on how you are looking at the question) governments involved.
Sometimes we tend to lump things together for
simplicity (e.g. see my earlier post where I
included the DMV which is usually a state or
county office with Walter Reed and the IRS as
examples of what people don't want to risk in a
"government"-run healthcare system), or because
when they look at the deductions from their
weekly or monthly paycheck many people feel there
is little practical difference whether the money
is going to the IRS, the state, the county, the
city, or that guy FICA who they never heard of
who gets so much of it ;): in any case it is
money they supposedly "earned" which is not
available to them to spend on food,
rent/mortgage, utilities, health care, other
types of insurance (e.g. auto and home),
transportation to and from work, the doctor, or
other necessary trips, etc., not to even mention so-called "luxuries" . . .
. . . ronn! :)
_______________________________________________
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
